Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbai Delhi Mumbai


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai Delhi Mumbai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film remake BOVINEBOY 2008 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of significant coverage. At best WP:TOOSOON, at worst probably not ever notable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The single citation is dated August 20, 2011 and references a tweet. --Bejnar (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * film:
 * film:
 * year:
 * studio:
 * and WP:INDAFD: Mumbai Delhi Mumbai Satish Rajwade


 * Keep this brand new article about a film by notable Indian director Satish Rajwade that is to be released September 26 (before this AFD is slated to end). With respects, the topic is sourcable and this AFD is what may be "too soon". We can let the sourcable/improvable stub remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. What say,,  ??    Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They should have waited to write the article until there was significant coverage and not just hype. --Bejnar (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That "hype" tends to be the case with all Indian films. My point was more that even with issues, this article was brand new on a film is due to be released on Friday and it could always have been nominated if it did not meet WP:NF after release. Why the rush to delete something that could be suitable in very few days? Why not simply suggest to its author that he keep it in userspace for a short while?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as it would be improper to ask about why the article had to be rushed into the Wikipedia before the film's release and before there was significant coverage; it would be improper to ask  as to possible unstated extrinsic reasons for deletion nomination, because such actions would not presume good faith. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a temporary bold redirect without prejudice to writer/director Satish Rajwade or suggesting to an inexperienced author that a copy of his work might be best if kept as a draft for a short time, and then encouraging him to study WP:NF, would have been reasonable and not nearly as WP:BITEY as sending a brand new article to AFD. And as it was not a hoax nor a policy violation, was there really such a hurry? And while Marathi films are usually adapted from Hindi scripts, it is far less common to have a Hindi film adapted from Marathi. Of course, now that we have confirmed release, and even with issues in sourcing Indian films, keeping this is now a simple matter of regular editing over time.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, now that it has been released, it looks as though it is non-notable. See here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To again disagree, the topic (finally) meets WP:NF... not based upon box office receipts or film popularity (or lack) but upon just enough coverage to meet the guideline. Heck, it's not a popularity contest, and even a total crap film can meet our inclusion criteria. What was first brought to AFD, as a 1113 characters (201 words) stub thought of as TOO SOON just 5 days after being contributed, is now a 2214 characters (375 words) Start or C class that serves our readers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course just meeting WP:GNG coverage is a case of YMMV, some of us discount hype and printing slightly reworded PR releases more than others. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * YMMV is funny, but not a guideline or policy. Intended to catch the readers eye and impart information quickly, Indian entertainment sources are rarely lengthy. Perhaps the government of India could be lobbied to outlaw any paper or electronic news article that is too short (by some arbitrary measure). My own understanding is that SIGCOV is defined here as coverage that gives us information directly related to the topic being covered and that the topic being sourced does not have to be the main topic of the source being used. Per guideline, significant coverage does not also have to be substantial coverage. Often confused with each other, the two terms do not mean the same... here. Be well,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Expansion work shows this meets WP:GNG and now the film has been released, it will have even more coverage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.